Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-12 18:09 UTC

rails / dartsass-rails

Integrate Dart Sass with the asset pipeline in Rails

Ruby · DockerfileMIT★ 252 stars⑂ 44 forkssince Jan 2022View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryCommand-line toolPluginNetwork servicehow this is determined

rails/dartsass-rails holds a health index of 27 out of 100, placing it in the At Risk band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (65/100) and lowest on Vitality (18/100). It was last updated 421 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

27
overall / 100
At Risk

Software health index

Metrics are grouped into weighted categories on one standardized 1–100 scale. Overall starts as their weighted mean, calibrated against the distribution of the public record so bands carry percentile meaning; when public evidence triggers the High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy, the rating is adjusted and receives an At Risk ceiling of 34.

27
Exceptional93-100The record's top tier (≈ top 5%); essentially all checked criteria met
Excellent80-92Strong across the board; minor gaps
Good65-79Healthy; gaps are limited and manageable
Moderate50-64Acceptable with notable gaps; review recommended
Weak35-49Material weaknesses across several areas
At Risk20-34Significant weaknesses; adoption warrants caution
Critical1-19Severe problems (abandoned, single-maintainer, no hygiene)
VitalityCommunity &AdoptionSustainability &GovernanceEngineeringQualitySecurityAI Readiness

Score profile

Each axis is a category. The shape matters more than the average — a healthy subject fills the whole shape, while a spike-and-crater profile means strength in one dimension is masking risk in another.

The weighted overall 47 is calibrated to 45 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Ruby on RailsOrganization
2,713 followers130 public repossince Apr 2008

This repository is backed by an organization — shared, accountable stewardship that can outlive any single maintainer.

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
RubyGemsdartsass-rails0.5.1-8774 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping?

18Critical · 21% of overall
How it's scored
0/36Push recency — last push 421 days ago
0/36Commit cadence — 0/52 weeks with commits
0/18Commit volume — 0 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year0
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push421
active_weeks_last_year0
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 6 releases published
0/36Release recency — latest release 774 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~184 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count6
latest_release_tagv0.5.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release774
mean_days_between_releases184
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Community & Adoption

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors?

63Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
38.9/60Stars — 252 stars
13.6/25Forks — 44 forks
5/15Watchers — 9 watchers
Inputs used
forks44
stars252
watchers9
growth_stateorganic
growth_factor_pct100
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
70.4/80Total downloads — 5,933,720 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesdartsass-rails
dependents—
ecosystemsrubygems
total_downloads5,933,720
monthly_downloads—
unverified_packages_excluded—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Registry dependents. Remaining weights renormalized.

Sustainability & Governance

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep?

65Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
9.2/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 59% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 19 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 5 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled19
top_contributor_share0.591
How it's scored
31.5/42Issue resolution — 75% of issues closed
21.3/30PR acceptance — 22/31 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
10.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 12/16 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
Inputs used
merged_prs22
open_issues9
closed_issues27
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.75
closed_unmerged_prs9
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
24.7/25Owner reach — 2,713 followers of rails
25/25Track record — 130 public repos, account ~18 yr old
Inputs used
followers2,713
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginrails
public_repos130
account_age_days6,737
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on rubygems
4/35Publish recency — latest publish 774 days ago
20/20Version history — 8 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesdartsass-rails
ecosystemsrubygems
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish774

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

49Weak · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 0 out of 12 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

50Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

Are visible security and supply-chain practices strong, without unresolved high-risk jurisdiction exposure?

41Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0/2.5CI-Tests — 0 out of 12 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
5.2/7.5Code-Review — Found 12/16 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 5 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
0/7.5Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 81 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate3
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
22.4/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — 1 affected: sqlite3 2.0.3 (moderate 4.5)
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
40/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory has been public longer than 90 days
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories81
affected_packages17
assessed_packages59
unassessed_packages2
affected_by_severitycritical 1, high 9, moderate 5, low 2
direct_affected_packages1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 59 resolved dependencies against OSV. 2 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list. This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so the repository dependency graph was assessed instead. That graph mixes development and test pins with shipped dependencies, so only the declared runtime dependencies are scored; transitive findings are reported as context and excluded from the score. Reachability is not analyzed.

AI Readiness

How well is the repo equipped to be developed and maintained with AI coding agents? Carries a deliberately small weight (4%): agent tooling is a real maintenance signal, but a repository with none can still reach 100/100.

32At Risk · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
19.9/40Legible commit history — 28 of 75 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.373
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — devcontainer, Dockerfile, lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 75
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesGemfile.lock
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontaineryes
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Ruby without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/7 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes2,421
source_files_sampled7
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

252GitHub stars
19contributors
0commits, last 12 months
421days since last push
6releases
1bus factor
9open issues
RubyGemspackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Star history carried forward from 2026-06-04: GitHub restricted the stargazers API to repository admins, so it can no longer be collected. The repository has 252 stars today.

More detail

Star and fork history 251 ★ / 44 ⇿
251Stars
44Forks
6Releases

When each star and fork was added, collected from GitHub and bucketed by day. Cumulative growth sits directly above the daily additions it is made of, so the two read against each other: steady organic accretion looks nothing like an abrupt, short-lived burst. Where that difference is measurable, it is reported as growth authenticity.

Star history is shown as collected on 2026-06-04. GitHub restricted the stargazers API to repository administrators in July 2026, so this series can no longer be extended; the current star total above remains live.

05010015020025030025142352022-012024-032026-06
Major 0Minor 4Patch 2

Each point covers 4 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.0 / 10
3.0aggregate

Independent, tool-agnostic security assessment from the open-source OpenSSF Scorecard. Each check rewards a security practice, not a specific vendor's tool. Checks Scorecard could not determine are marked n/a and excluded from the security score (never counted as zero).Scorecard v5.5.0 · 2026-09-12 18:09 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0CI-Tests0 out of 12 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
7Code-ReviewFound 12/16 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
10Contributorsproject has 5 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
0Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0Vulnerabilities81 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 4
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
RubyGemsappraisal—Gemfile
RubyGemsrails~> 6.1.0Gemfile
RubyGemssqlite3—Gemfile
RubyGemsdebug>= 1.0.0Gemfile
All dependencies 61

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 4 direct and 57 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsappraisal2.5.0direct
RubyGemsdebug1.9.2direct
RubyGemsrails6.1.7.8direct
RubyGemssqlite32.0.3direct
RubyGemsactioncable6.1.7.8indirect
RubyGemsactionmailbox6.1.7.8indirect
RubyGemsactionmailer6.1.7.8indirect
RubyGemsactionpack6.1.7.8indirect
RubyGemsactiontext6.1.7.8indirect
RubyGemsactionview6.1.7.8indirect
RubyGemsactivejob6.1.7.8indirect
RubyGemsactivemodel6.1.7.8indirect
RubyGemsactiverecord6.1.7.8indirect
RubyGemsactivestorage6.1.7.8indirect
RubyGemsactivesupport6.1.7.8indirect
RubyGemsbigdecimal3.1.8indirect
RubyGemsbuilder3.3.0indirect
RubyGemsconcurrent-ruby1.3.3indirect
RubyGemscrass1.0.6indirect
RubyGemsdate3.3.4indirect
RubyGemserubi1.13.0indirect
RubyGemsglobalid1.2.1indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-protobuf4.27.2indirect
RubyGemsi18n1.14.5indirect
RubyGemsio-console0.7.2indirect
RubyGemsirb1.14.0indirect
RubyGemsloofah2.22.0indirect
RubyGemsmail2.8.1indirect
RubyGemsmarcel1.0.4indirect
RubyGemsmethod_source1.1.0indirect
RubyGemsmini_mime1.1.5indirect
RubyGemsmini_portile22.8.7indirect
RubyGemsminitest5.24.1indirect
RubyGemsnet-imap0.4.14indirect
RubyGemsnet-pop0.1.2indirect
RubyGemsnet-protocol0.2.2indirect
RubyGemsnet-smtp0.5.0indirect
RubyGemsnio4r2.7.3indirect
RubyGemsnokogiri1.16.7indirect
RubyGemspsych5.1.2indirect
RubyGemsracc1.8.1indirect
RubyGemsrack2.2.9indirect
RubyGemsrack-test2.1.0indirect
RubyGemsrails-dom-testing2.2.0indirect
RubyGemsrails-html-sanitizer1.6.0indirect
RubyGemsrailties—indirect
RubyGemsrailties6.1.7.8indirect
RubyGemsrake13.2.1indirect
RubyGemsrdoc6.7.0indirect
RubyGemsreline0.5.9indirect
RubyGemssass-embedded—indirect
RubyGemssass-embedded1.77.8indirect
RubyGemssprockets4.2.1indirect
RubyGemssprockets-rails3.5.1indirect
RubyGemsstringio3.1.1indirect
RubyGemsthor1.3.1indirect
RubyGemstimeout0.4.1indirect
RubyGemstzinfo2.0.6indirect
RubyGemswebsocket-driver0.7.6indirect
RubyGemswebsocket-extensions0.1.5indirect
RubyGemszeitwerk2.6.17indirect
Dependency advisories 17

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 59 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 17 carry known advisories, of which 1 are direct. 2 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
activestorage6.1.7.8indirectcritical78.1.3.1
actionmailer6.1.7.8indirecthigh17.2.1.1
actionpack6.1.7.8indirecthigh38.0.0.1
actiontext6.1.7.8indirecthigh17.2.1.1
activesupport6.1.7.8indirecthigh38.1.2.1
concurrent-ruby1.3.3indirecthigh31.3.7
google-protobuf4.27.2indirecthigh14.28.2
nokogiri1.16.7indirecthigh151.19.4
rack2.2.9indirecthigh223.2.6
websocket-driver0.7.6indirecthigh40.8.2
sqlite32.0.3directmoderate12.9.5
activerecord6.1.7.8indirectmoderate18.0.2.1
loofah2.22.0indirectmoderate12.25.2
mail2.8.1indirectmoderate12.9.1
net-imap0.4.14indirectmoderate100.6.4.1
actionview6.1.7.8indirectlow18.1.2.1
rails-html-sanitizer1.6.0indirectlow61.7.1

An advisory means the version recorded in the dependency graph falls inside an advisory’s affected range. Reachability is not analysed, and the graph includes development and test pins — a finding may concern tooling rather than shipped software.

Raw JSON report machine-readable

Feedback

Spotted something off in this report, or have thoughts to share? Wrong measurements, missed tooling, ideas, questions — anything is welcome. Every message is read and gets a response.

The message is kept through sign-in.

Scores are signals, not warranties. They reflect publicly visible practices on GitHub — not a code audit, and not a security guarantee.

Missing data is excluded and weights renormalized, never scored as zero. Methodology is versioned and open: metrics v2.10.0, schema v0.34.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statistics — RubyGems.